I've hit reply to the latest in the thread, but this message is in further
response to Bjoern and the thread in general.
I would like to point out that the W3C process document specifically
states that last call commenters are not required to develop full
spec-ready solutions to the problems they identify. It is the
responsibility of the CSS working group to come up with a proposed
solution and then ask the commenter if they are satisfied.
I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation in this email thread for
why the CSS group is choosing to violate the axiom that Steven has
described clearly below (and just as clearly in his last call comment).
What I have seen on this thread is a last call comment being rejected
without the rejection even being approved by the CSS working group (or so
I learned today from the chair during the Hypertext Coordination Group
telecon). The comment is being made in good faith about a long-standing
principle that the CSS working group appears to be breaking. A more
positive, good faith response that is reflective of consideration by the
full working group is warranted to explain why the break is happening and
why it is preferrable (if it is indeed the decision to stay with the
breakage), what authors must do to work around the problem, and to propose
spec-ready text for these explanations.
Thank you,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
"Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
03/28/2008 09:11 AM
To
"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc
www-style@w3.org, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>, "XHTML WG"
<public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:18:04 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
wrote:
> Mark asked for guidance on how to choose between multiple methods, that
> request is sound and already addressed in the right place. You on the
> other hand assert that default namespace declarations in style sheets as
> proposed in the draft come as a surprise and special attention needs to
> be drawn to this surprise. I don't think there is any surprise, and thus
> have a hard time to understand exactly how we could address the concern.
> If you could propose specific edits, that would be most helpful.
I didn't say it was a surprise. I said it was contrary to an axiom of CSS
up to now that future additions to CSS don't change how previous parts of
the language work. That is part of the forward-compatible parsing rules of
CSS:
If I apply the forward-compatible parsing rules to a
CSS(n+1) stylesheet,
stripping it of its CSS(n+1) features, I will get a CSS(n) stylesheet.
None of the rules left change their meaning in the process.
This has always been true in CSS, and the namespace selectors spec changes
this.
A note pointing out that default namespaces alter the way that type
selectors work compared with earlier versions of CSS, and if you want to
avoid that you should always use explicit qualified names would do the
trick.
Best wishes,
Steven